N
- Status
C
chrisb
Guest
Any Dogmatic Declaration post-schism by the West will ultimately serve as points of division by those that seek to stir up fear in any unity with the East and West. Because modern Orthodox doesn’t seem to recognize a need in man of Sanctifying Grace through the Sacraments of the Church for the Salvation of Man… there simply is no reason for them to recognize any necessity in the Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Mother. 
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
True.
I personally do not find the IC a “loophole” in Augustine’s view of Original Sin, but that is ME. If the Vessel was PURE from the very beginning, then the stain of Original Sin did not affect her. But I know that a lot of folks would give me Good Reasons for disagreeing with that.
I do agree we have a LONG way to go for any kind of “common ground” on ANY possibility of Reunification.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Pardon my extreme “naivete,” but what then do the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church provide other than “Sanctifying Grace?”Any Dogmatic Declaration post-schism by the West will ultimately serve as points of division by those that seek to stir up fear in any unity with the East and West. Because modern Orthodox doesn’t seem to recognize a need in man of Sanctifying Grace through the Sacraments of the Church for the Salvation of Man… there simply is no reason for them to recognize any necessity in the Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Mother.
Simply Direct Communion with Our Lord?
I’m still relatively new to the Melkite Church and the complicated Rituals and Sacraments in the RC, EC, and OC. I’m not as familiar with the exact meaning of the Sacraments in the OC.
Anybody can answer this?
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I’ve been following this thread but I have been struggling to follow it. I get it as far as the Eastern Orthodox churches have an issue with the Immaculate Conception. Do they not believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin? Or, do they not believe in original sin? As an aside do the Eastern Orthodox churches not believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary? What is the Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
C
chrisb
Guest
First, you must discard the notion that the Western Church teaching of Original Sin is unique to St. Augustine. It is not. In fact, it rests with St. Cyprian and the teachings of the necessity of Baptism ( a second birth).
C
chrisb
Guest
I don’t think that modern Orthodox Christians are taught that the state of fallen man is any different than that of the original state of Adam (pre-fall). This is of course in direct opposition to the teachings of St. Athanasius “On the Incarnation” but I’ll let them present their own theology on the subject of the Original Sin.
With regards to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, their tradition focuses on her Dormition (i.e. falling asleep) where as the Western Tradition has long been the celebration of her Assumption (taking up). With the East’s own Iconography the soul of the Blessed Virgin is taken up in the arms of her son Our Lord Jesus Christ but they are content to focus on her physical death mirroring the Passion Feast of Our Lord on Good Friday as opposed to his Ascension into Heaven. If you notice our Assumption Iconography mirriors Christ’s Ascension… just as many of our saints have recorded over the years visions of soul ascending into the heavens after their physical death so it has been depicted within the Assumption Iconographic paintings of the event.
The Immaculate Conception seems to rest solely on a difference in the teaching of Original Sin and state of man at birth which the Western Church has historically denied as Pelagianism if not semi-Pelagianism.
D
dcointin
Guest
Here is a selection from Orthodox theologian Fr. Thomas Hopko, where he discusses the fall of man in Genesis:
"Thus man sinned. He “missed the mark” of his calling. He transgressed the Law of God (see 1 Jn 3:4). And so he ruined both himself and the creation which he was given to care for and to cultivate. By his sin-and his sins – man brings himself and all creation under the rule of evil and death.
In the Bible and in Orthodox theology these elements always go together: sin, evil, the devil, suffering and death. There is never one without the other, and all are the common result of man’s rebellion against God and his loss of communion with Him. This is the primary meaning of Gen 3 and the chapters which follow until the calling of Abraham. Sin begets still more sin and even greater evil. It brings cosmic disharmony, the ultimate corruption and death of everyone and everything. Man still remains the created image of God – this cannot be changed – but he fails to keep his image pure and to retain the divine likeness. He defiles his humanity with evil, perverts it and deforms it so that it cannot be the pure reflection of God that it was meant to be. The world also remains good, indeed “very good,” but it shares the sorry consequences of its created master’s sin and suffers with him in mortal agony and corruption. Thus, through man’s sin the whole world falls under the rule of Satan and “lies in wickedness” (1 Jn 5:19; see also Rom 5:12)."
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I fear unity between East and West because of Imperialists such as yourself who have no understanding of what we believe.Any Dogmatic Declaration post-schism by the West will ultimately serve as points of division by those that seek to stir up fear in any unity with the East and West. Because modern Orthodox doesn’t seem to recognize a need in man of Sanctifying Grace through the Sacraments of the Church for the Salvation of Man… there simply is no reason for them to recognize any necessity in the Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Mother.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Thank you for the information.
You’re right-----Original Sin was NOT first declared by Augustine. The doctrine IS most closely associated with HIM, though. At least, that is what I was taught at an early age by my relatives. Before I knew the “Eastern Side.”
Too bad St. Cyprian and Other Early Fathers are not emphasized as much as they should be. The Eastern view definitely needs its proper place in the Sun after 3000 years.
On the other hand, what part does “Sanctifying Grace” play, if at all, in the EC sacraments?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dcointin and Nine_Two,
So would I be understanding you correctly when I say that you are interpreting the line:
Hence, if anyone shall dare–which God forbid!–to think otherwise than as has been defined by us…,
as
Hence if anyone is haughty enough to think otherwise than as has been defined by us…
I hope to get a response from both of you.
Blessings,
Marduk
I think I see where you are coming from. But I would like verification from both of you first.
So would I be understanding you correctly when I say that you are interpreting the line:
Hence, if anyone shall dare–which God forbid!–to think otherwise than as has been defined by us…,
as
Hence if anyone is haughty enough to think otherwise than as has been defined by us…
I hope to get a response from both of you.
Blessings,
Marduk
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Ouch, that was “Cold!”
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Before I reply, I would like to see a proper translation, since you have said the translation we both posted is faulty. No point responding to points on a faulty translation.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
While I enjoy a good discussion I have no time for those who declare those who disagree with them oppose unity and then go into a rant against things which no one believes or has stated, it sadly happens all too often here.Ouch, that was “Cold!”
For those, such as yourself and Mardukm, who show a willingness to look at what is being written, I am open to reading.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nine_Two,
In any case, Brother Dcointin gave a pretty accurate translation in his post #19:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7093842&postcount=19
Still, can you let us know if my understanding of your understanding of the translator’s understanding of his father’s understanding of his cousin’s second wife’s understanding… (whoooaah nelly! sorry got carried away -
- please disregard the underlined portion) of the text you originally gave is accurate?
Blessings,
Marduk
What I’m requesting is your understanding from the faulty translation. I don’t think we need to refer to the proper translation to discuss that.
In any case, Brother Dcointin gave a pretty accurate translation in his post #19:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7093842&postcount=19
Still, can you let us know if my understanding of your understanding of the translator’s understanding of his father’s understanding of his cousin’s second wife’s understanding… (whoooaah nelly! sorry got carried away -
- please disregard the underlined portion) of the text you originally gave is accurate?Blessings,
Marduk
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Alright, in that translation, if I were going by the smaller bit you quoted alone I would agree with that interpretation, however taking that complete line together (up to the part about being a shipwreck), no, I I’d say that while it doesn’t preclude haughtyness, it is saying that if someone thinks differently for any reason their faith is a “shipwreck”.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
As an addendum, I would interprete the other translation which you ascribe more accuracy to, in the same way.
D
dcointin
Guest
I understand it as saying that to disagree with the dogma is to be in heresy, with no exceptions for why one might disagree.
V
Vico
Guest
That which is lacking at birth is the “stain of original sin” in the Latin terms, or the lack of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in other words. The consequences of “the original sin of Adam and Eve” inherited by being human still remain (we are inflicted), and there is no personal sin in the infant.
It is not necessary to do that which is not needed, so infants are baptised to give the gifts which are lacking. Saint John Chrysotsom states that infant baptism is done that infants can become the dwelling places of the Spirit.
Saint John Chrysotsom, Archbishop of Constantinople, writes in his Baptismal Instruction 3:6:
“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
The preservation of the Blessed Virgin Mary was that she was endowed with these gifts from the first moment of her conception. It was Duns Scotus, that gave the Latin Church the concept of preservation, with regard to the immaculate concepton, after which there was a long debate, finally ending in the dogma being declared.
At the time the dogma refuted Pelagianism (Adam’s sin did not affect future generations, grace is only needed as a help since we can cooperate with God’s grace on our own) and Semi-Pelagianism (humanity is effected by sin, but not so much that we cannot cooperate with God’s grace on our own).
Virgin Mary, shared beforehand in the salvation Christ would bring by his death and was keep sinless from the first instance of her conception: she had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
A
Aramis
Guest
While the IC has been a hindrance to corporate unity, it’s been a part of the reason for translation for several OCA Russian Orthodox I’ve known.
- Status